Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 00:24:33 -0500 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@turbofuzz.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] should crunchgen use basename(3) instead of homebrew code? Message-ID: <AANLkTinXsksODj4vMcnPdhJ9wLROrriYEQidYfXLQJ-_@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6DCC53BA-D20A-4593-B3B0-1389734AD308@turbofuzz.com> References: <AANLkTimyXvm%2B6zyAobzxq-PCfBJus2ZMHvk5ztBOzufW@mail.gmail.com> <6DCC53BA-D20A-4593-B3B0-1389734AD308@turbofuzz.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Jordan K. Hubbard <jkh@turbofuzz.com> wrot= e: > Wow. =C2=A0A couple of questions. There was a reason my subject line was in the form of a question. When poking around various parts of the "crypt" I noticed that the code does something seemingly covered by an existing function so I decided to poke the relevant people about it. More generally - I don't like seeing old code do something on its own that we have an existing function for. However your post convinced me that gain of consistency is not worth the headaches it may cause. --=20 Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTinXsksODj4vMcnPdhJ9wLROrriYEQidYfXLQJ-_>